Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings

From: "Josh Tolley" <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings
Date: 2007-09-01 19:17:11
Message-ID: e7e0a2570709011217v5abffd5eqe5b5f9124baa650@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 9/1/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> > Can we also provide syntax which would be equivalent to setting "var"
> > for the function to be whatever the current value happens to be when the
> > ALTER FUNCTION is run? Possible syntax might be something like:
>
> > ALTER FUNCTION func(args) SET var TO CURRENT;
>
> Hmmm ... that's certainly do-able, though I'm not sure how much it helps
> the use-case you suggest. The search path still has to be set at the
> top of the module script, no?
>
> However, I like an explicit option of this sort a lot better than the
> automatic version Greg was suggesting ... I'm willing to do it if people
> want it.
>
> One problem is that we'd have to make CURRENT a reserved word to make it
> work exactly like that. Can anyone think of a variant syntax that
> doesn't need a new reserved word?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

+1 for being able to define the entire function in one command, +1 for
not inheriting a bunch of GUC settings without the definer's explicit
say-so.

- Josh/Eggyknap

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian G. Pflug 2007-09-01 19:52:55 Re: [PATCH] Lazy xid assingment V2
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-09-01 19:12:44 Re: Per-function search_path => per-function GUC settings